Teams who've never made the Prem...

[spudski]

...it's pretty grim when you see it in black and white. Tick Luton off now. 

 

[GlastonburyRed]

Are we the current highest ranked of those, as well

[MarcusX]

We’ve played in the top flight, nothing story. Football didn’t start in 1992

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

We’ve played in the top flight, nothing story. Football didn’t start in 1992

Yeh. It's literally just "teams that haven't played in the top flight since the 92/93 season."

I'm so bored of this.

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

13 minutes ago, GlastonburyRed said:

Are we the current highest ranked of those, as well

No, Preston. 

[Big C]

5 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

No, Preston. 

No, Millwall

[spudski]

23 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

We’ve played in the top flight, nothing story. Football didn’t start in 1992

Nobody said it did or we haven't. 

The subject is Prem league...not top flight ever.

It's arguably worse...Div 1 was easier to get into, compared to the Prem, it's money, and parachute payments. 

Any team getting into the Prem these days without any of that has achieved greater imo. 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by spudski

[Porto Red]

Grim reading, however you slice it. There's only Preston on that list who can remotely challenge us for size of club, surely.

[cidercity1987]

We have averaged 20k or more generally for a long time now.

The last time Preston got that was 1960. The last time Millwall 1951.

On what planet are we not BY FAR the biggest club to have not been in the Prem

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

We have averaged 20k or more generally for a long time now.

The last time Preston got that was 1960. The last time Millwall 1951.

On what planet are we not BY FAR the biggest club to have not been in the Prem

Depends how you define biggest, I guess.

[steviestevieneville]

3 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

We have averaged 20k or more generally for a long time now.

The last time Preston got that was 1960. The last time Millwall 1951.

On what planet are we not BY FAR the biggest club to have not been in the Prem

Because the size of a club is not or should not imo be defined by fanbase. Size of a club imo is history. Ours consisted of 9 years in the top flight & one fa cup final. Preston’s history is miles better than ours 

Edited May 31, 2023 by steviestevieneville

[ExiledAjax]

28 minutes ago, spudski said:

Nobody said it did or we haven't. 

The subject is Prem league...not top flight ever.

But what's the point in that? The PL is essentially just a repackaged First Division designed to better market and sell media rights and licensing.

It's also (now) a 20 team division rather than the old 22 team First Division, so arguably it is harder to become a PL team than it previously was to be a First Division team.

It's just an arbitrary statistic that serves little purpose beyond furthering the pro-PL narrative that it is the "promised land".

More interesting is the "time since last in top flight" stat - which is also obviously pretty damning for our club.

We've been shit/underperformed for 40 years is about the rub of it. It's been discussed ad nauseum [insert cliché about being a sleeping giant].

Edited May 31, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[cidercity1987]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Depends how you define biggest, I guess.

Size of fanbase.

Captures everything.

Bigger city / catchment = more fans. More success = more fans.

Bigger stadium= more fans. 

Whatever metric of size feeds through to bums on seats.

[cidercity1987]

3 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Because the size of a club is not or should not imo be defined by fanbase. Size of a club imo is history. Ours consisted of 9 years in the top flight & one fa cup final. Preston’s history is miles better than ours 

I think you are answering the question, who is the most successful. And we would be bottom of that list compared to most teams.

[Red-Robbo]

5 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Because the size of a club is not or should not imo be defined by fanbase. Size of a club imo is history. Ours consisted of 9 years in the top flight & one fa cup final. Preston’s history is miles better than ours 

 

But even longer ago than our late 70s sojourn in the elite. 

[ExiledAjax]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Depends how you define biggest, I guess.

Fair to say we've probably had, on average, the biggest wage bill of all those clubs for the past 5 years?*

I accept that a club can misplace and mis-spend in that regard, and that there's more to it than raw wage figures, but for me that's the most damning stat.**

*possibly even over the past 30 years but that's probably impossible to figure out.

**if we're accepting that "since the PL began" is the correct arbitrary time-span over which to judge English football clubs.

[steviestevieneville]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

But even longer ago than our late 70s sojourn in the elite. 

It is yes but history defines a club imo & they have a rich one . Over the last 5-10 the only difference is larger crowds 

[Merrick's Marvels]

10 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Because the size of a club is not or should not imo be defined by fanbase. Size of a club imo is history. Ours consisted of 9 years in the top flight & one fa cup final. Preston’s history is miles better than ours 

Yeah but that's all it is with Preston - history. Tom Finney etc. So yeah, Preston were (past tense) a bigger club. 

History is all it is with us too, mind. 1970s and 1900s. 

So you forget the past and compare the here and now = we're bigger than Preston.

Huddersfield were massively successful in the 30s... who'd consider them a big club?? etc etc

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, steviestevieneville said:

It is yes but history defines a club imo & they have a rich one . Over the last 5-10 the only difference is larger crowds 

 

They have a better record than many of the clubs in the Prem, but let's not forget, Tom Finney retired in 1960 and there may be few people alive, if any, who can remember watching PNE win their second FA Cup. 

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

But what's the point in that? The PL is essentially just a repackaged First Division designed to better market and sell media rights and licensing.

It's also (now) a 20 team division rather than the old 24 team First Division, so arguably it is harder to become a PL team than it previously was to be a First Division team.

It's just an arbitrary statistic that serves little purpose beyond furthering the pro-PL narrative that it is the "promised land".

More interesting is the "time since last in top flight" stat - which is also obviously pretty damning for our club.

We've been shit/underperformed for 40 years is about the rub of it. It's been discussed ad nauseum [insert cliché about being a sleeping giant].

The old first and second divisions were 22 teams each (22, 22, 24 and 24 = the 92).  I guess the original (that Preston won) was only 12 teams!

[spudski]

12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

But what's the point in that? The PL is essentially just a repackaged First Division designed to better market and sell media rights and licensing.

It's also (now) a 20 team division rather than the old 24 team First Division, so arguably it is harder to become a PL team than it previously was to be a First Division team.

It's just an arbitrary statistic that serves little purpose beyond furthering the pro-PL narrative that it is the "promised land".

More interesting is the "time since last in top flight" stat - which is also obviously pretty damning for our club.

We've been shit/underperformed for 40 years is about the rub of it. It's been discussed ad nauseum [insert cliché about being a sleeping giant].

As I pointed out, like you've observed...it's harder to get into the Prem than the old Div 1.

So arguably it's an even worse scenario, when you look how many teams have made the Prem without parachute payments. 

[Tim Monaghan]

That’s made me wince a bit! 

I get so frustrated thinking about the potential of this club. I think about the catchment area and the size of the city and can’t believe the potential it has. Surely with the contacts SL must have,  someone can see the potential? 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Ghost Rider

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

As I pointed out, like you've observed...it's harder to get into the Prem than the old Div 1.

So arguably it's an even worse scenario, when you look how many teams have made the Prem without parachute payments. 

Hang on.

Because it's harder to do, the fact that other teams have done it, and we haven't, means it's more damning for us.

The harder something is, the greater one's failure for not achieving it when someone else achieves that thing?

Is that the twisted logic you're applying here?

Edited May 31, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[spudski]

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Hang on.

Because it's harder to do, the fact that other teams have done it, and we haven't, means it's more damning for us.

The harder something is, the greater one's failure for not achieving it when someone else achieves that thing?

Is that the twisted logic you're applying here?

It's not twisted...it's common sense. 

Yes...imo, getting into the Prem with no parachute payments, is a greater achievement, than doing it into the old Div 1. 

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, spudski said:

It's not twisted...it's common sense. 

Yes...imo, getting into the Prem with no parachute payments, is a greater achievement, than doing it into the old Div 1. 

Money has always been at the centre of success, pre-PPs, pre-Prem League.  I don’t think one era is harder or easier than any other.  Is Forest winning the old Div1 any easier / harder than Leicester winning the PL?

[Mendip City]

I get that people don’t like the Premier League line. Football didn’t start then. 
 

Maybe the better way to do it is “teams not to have played in the top flight since we last did”. 
 

The way the list gets even more depressing as you can knock off…. Luton (by either measure), Millwall, Oxford (yes Oxford), Wimbledon/MK Dons (take your pick). 

We’re in an “elite” group of 40 pretty small clubs. 

[shelts]

It’s a shame we haven’t made it to the Prem, many reasons for it . I think things are in place more now than at any other time in our history . To have a chance of being involved at the business end of the season isn’t that far away. 

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Money has always been at the centre of success, pre-PPs, pre-Prem League.  I don’t think one era is harder or easier than any other.  Is Forest winning the old Div1 any easier / harder than Leicester winning the PL?

No one has mentioned winning the top division Dave

We are discussing gaining promotion to it. 

I believe it's harder to stay in it once you've achieved promotion than before though. 

[ExiledAjax]

30 minutes ago, spudski said:

It's not twisted...it's common sense. 

Yes...imo, getting into the Prem with no parachute payments, is a greater achievement, than doing it into the old Div 1. 

But if it's a greater achievement to do it then how is it a greater failure to not achieve it?

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, spudski said:

No one has mentioned winning the top division Dave

We are discussing gaining promotion to it. 

I believe it's harder to stay in it once you've achieved promotion than before though. 

Ok is Forest getting out of old Div2 any harder / easier than Leicester getting out of the Championship prior to their next success?

Both backed heavily, one by the local “butcher”, the other by a less-local “butcher”!